UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM CHANDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question for consideration in this second appeal is whether a notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, hereinafter the Act, will be invalid notice on account of mistake in the description of the forwarding station,

(2.) THE facts of the case, relevant for the purpose, can be stated thus : The plaintiff booked a consignment of hard coke from Pathardih Railway Station to New Gauhati. Some shortage was discovered at the time of taking delivery. The plaintiff served a notice under Section 78-B of the Act on the Railways claiming compensation. In the said notice all there quested particulars namely, R/R number, date* description of the goods, destination station, nature of the loss were correctly Stated. However, there was a mistake in stating the name of the forwarding station which was inadvertently shown to be 'Kusunda. When the notice was served on the Railways, the Railway Receipt (R/R) was already with them and as such they could detect the mistake. A letter was written by the Railways to the plaintiff pointing out the said mistake. The plaintiff corrected the same. The Railways having rejected the claim, the suit was filed which was dismissed on the ground, inter alia, of defect in the notice. On appeal the appellate Court held that the Railway administration could trace out the records of the suit consignment from the said notice, which is a finding of fact. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the aforesaid defect in the notice was only a technical defect and, therefore, held that the suit was not liable to be dismissed on that ground. This second appeal has been filed against the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Court.

(3.) I have considered the submission of Mr. Duara. I have also heard Mr. S.L, Jain, the learned Counsel for the respondent. Mr. Jain relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jetmull Bhojraj v. Darjeeling Himalayan Railways Co. Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court held that a notice under Section 77 (now 78-B) should be liberally construed and should not be allowed to be interpreted in a manner depriving the consignors of their legitimate claims for compensation.